Homeland Security Watch

News and analysis of critical issues in homeland security

November 2, 2011

Standards of Service

Filed under: Organizational Issues — by Mark Chubb on November 2, 2011

Last week, I attended the Northeast Conference on Public Administration. The conference focused on efforts to build trust and confidence in public service. In principle, I have nothing against trust and confidence, but as last week’s post probably made clear, I think these feelings only get you so far.

Several theorists suggest that trust and confidence is an important prerequisite of democracy legitimacy. But practitioners know the absence of trust is often a prime mover among the disaffected who show up at public meetings to influence officials. It should come as no surprise then that the more involved someone is in the political and administrative processes of government, the more likely they are to have trust and confidence in the outcome of public processes and those who make them.

Most of the distrust in government and public officials stems from the sense that these individuals and institutions are increasingly removed from the experiences of those they serve and the effects of the decisions they make. Firefighters, teachers, nurses, and cops often enjoy public approval ratings far higher than politicians because they have intimate contact with people, and those with whom they come into contact have little or no understanding of what they actually do or how they do it. As such, routine exposure to the good works of public officials does not necessarily translate into public support much less political power.

This begs the question then, what is public trust and confidence good for and how can public officials, especially homeland security practitioners, build it and use it to achieve important public purposes? For starters, we should recognize that what people say they want and what these desires mean often requires clarification.

I work in the fire service, where people often express their expectations of us as follows:

Speedget there quickly.

Relevancedo the right thing.

Accuracydo things right.

I imagine that these same expectations apply to many other aspects of the homeland security enterprise. Who wouldn’t like to get through passenger screening at the airport quickly, while knowing that the screening procedures were both the minimum necessary as well as sufficient to prevent any acts of terrorism from occurring?

When questions or controversies arise surrounding our service, however, it become clearer that people understand that these expectations come at a cost, and their desire for each is more or less elastic depending upon their situation and the circumstances attending their need for service. Over the years, it has become clearer to me that people assess our performance and detect deviations from their expectations a little differently than they usually express them:

Speed –> consistency, dependabilityshowing up at all is just as important as getting there quickly.

Relevance –> coherence, qualityactions other than the expected are acceptable when they are based on sound reasoning.

Accuracy –> compassionwhether a decision or action is acceptable depends upon how it makes people feel.

These days people are increasingly surprised to get any response at all, much less a quick one. Knowing that someone will show up every time they need help has become every bit as important as knowing that such help will come quickly. People need to know they can depend upon government to try, even if it comes up short sometimes. Inconsistency lends itself to the impression of undependability, even when the lack of responsiveness in some circumstances leads to faster responses in others.

When performance deviates from expectations, people look to experts for understanding. They need to know that the actions fit the circumstances, and they often judge this in one of two ways: 1) by how hard people are trying and 2) by whether things get better or at the very least stop getting worse. It matters very little to those watching whether the actions they observe have a direct effect on the outcome so long as they can see people making an effort. If things get better or stop getting worse, they naturally assume that the result arises from the actions undertaken.

Even if things end badly, people often judge the quality of the outcome and its appropriateness by how those engaged in the effort made them feel. People understand implicitly that when things start badly they often end badly. But they also appreciate it when those who respond to remedy the effects of their errors avoid the temptation to find fault, allocate blame or pass judgment, especially without learning all the facts first.

I have translated these observations about public expectations into three fairly simple and straightforward statements to guide operations where I work:

We always show up! We are there for each other and our community when they need us.

We take decisive action to make things better. We are neither spectators nor observers. We take reasonable risks to achieve appropriate results and accept responsibility for all of our actions.

We engage everyone with compassion and respect. We treat people they way we want to be treated. We seek understanding by looking at ourselves and the situations we face the way others see us.

I cannot tell you that this approach will transform public opinion or translate into broad public approval or political support for our agency or its actions. But I  can say with confidence that taking this approach makes me feel better about what we do and how we do it. More importantly, it speaks to why wo do what we do: We serve the public for their sake not our own.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • Print
  • LinkedIn

1 Comment »

Comment by William R. Cumming

November 3, 2011 @ 12:36 am

Another interesting and well thought out post by Mark. Yet when it comes to the FIRE SERVICE are the qualities discussed being well used to reduce the threat of FIRE and its reality as expertly, efficiently, and effectively as possible given what the public investment both monetarily and pyschologically has and is over time? National Fire statistics are collected. For Home Fires, it turns out that smoke alarms when installed and working do have a fairly dramatic impact on fatalities. Sprinkler systems also. Although seldom are in residential construction. So when those awful public meetings that can drag on and on are talking of the mundane of zoning and building and other codes is the FIRE SERVICE in each community bringing to bear its specific knowledge to let those making decisions know what tradeoffs and choices are really being made.

I argue from a different basis than many having seen the FIRE SERVICE undercut in Congress and the Executive Branch time and time again because no one is there to make people understand that FIRE is not a local issue. It is a national issue and the FIRE SERVICE is a NATIONAL RESOURCE in that it is the largest collective of skilled personnel involved daily in protection and protection, mitigation, response and even recovery but often is unheard because the vision of the FIRE SERVICE is not there. Why did the FIRE SERVICE for example not make itself expert on communications for all FIRST RESPONDERS or in another specific example why is it so late in the day that only NY and Florida have statutory mandates that fire coupling devices be standardize throughout the STATE? You do understand Mark that I am largely a half empty guy when looking at the glass of water not half full.

I have seen again and again the FIRE SERVICE fail to accomplish in the public safety and health arena what I think it might given its numbers and skills. Relatively speaking the FIRE SERVICE at the National level often has one its five main organizations opposing each other sometimes just for the sake of opposition and not really working on needed policy adoption and issues!

My best arrow in the quiver is saved for last! Why did the FIRE SERVICE remain so tardy in equipping itself in its entirety with SCBA–Why did OSHA have to regulate that for the FIRE SERVICE? And why do so many who are not fully trained and equipped and led in the volunteer force often fatalities or injured? Personally I don’t view the FIRE SERVICE as culturally being early adopters nor welcoming such into their ranks! WHY is that?

And does the HERO complex get people killed when they should live?

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>